For more info, click here.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
12:00 PM – 12:30 PM FREE Lunchtime Teleconference
Location: Teleconference –
Dial 1-610-214-0100
Access Code: 341076#
Payment Details:
• Members: $0.00 in advance (By Sep 13) / $0.00 at the door
• Non-Members: $0.00 in advance (By Sep 13) / $0.00 at the door
The
Big news! Weintraub’s L&E Law Blog is one of the nominated candidates for the LexisNexis Top 25 Labor and Employment Law Blogs of 2011.
We need your help! Click here, log onto the Labor and Employment Law Community and then leave a comment at the bottom of the page saying “I vote for The
On August 25, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”) issued a new rule which requires all private-sector employers (including labor unions) subject to the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the Act. The required notice will include information about employees’ rights to act together to improve wages and working conditions, to form, join, and assist a union, to bargain collectively with their employer, and to refrain from any of these activities. The final rule takes effect on November 14, 2011.
The notice must be at least 11 inches by 17 inches in size and posted in a conspicuous place where it can be readily seen by employees. In addition to the physical posting, the notice must be posted to any intranet or internet site maintained by the employer which contains other personnel rules and policies.
The NLRB will make an acceptable notice available starting on November 1, 2011. Employers can either download a free copy of the notice from the NLRB’s website or request a free copy by contacting the NLRB at its headquarters or its regional, sub-regional, or resident offices. Alternatively, employers can satisfy the rule by purchasing a set of workplace posters from a commercial supplier.Continue Reading NLRB Issues New Employer Posting Requirements Effective November 14, 2011
Last September, California’s previous governor (the “Governator;” oops I mean Governor Schwarzenegger) signed into law a new statutory leave entitlement for certain employees who are going to donate their bone marrow or an organ to another.
The law was codified in Labor Code section 1510 and provided that an employer must grant a paid leave of absence to an employee who is an organ donor or a bone marrow donor. The leave of absence to an organ donor is up to 30 days in a one-year period. The leave of absence for a bone marrow donor is up to 5 days in a one-year period. The leave of absence for either donor is not a break in his or her continuous service for the purpose of his or her right to salary adjustments, sick leave, vacation, annual leave, or seniority. As a condition of an employee’s initial receipt of the leave of absence, an employer may require the employee to take a specified number of days of earned but unused sick or vacation leave, unless that would violate provisions of an applicable collective bargaining agreement.
California’s current Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 272 on August 1, 2011 in order to clarify certain provisions in Labor Code section 1510.Continue Reading Governor Brown Signed Bill To Amend Organ and Bone Marrow Donation Leave Law
The Third Appellate District for the California Court of Appeals recently issued a decision that provides hope for those employers who unknowingly hire undocumented workers throughout California. In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the court used the after-acquired evidence and unclean hands doctrines to bar Salas’ Complaint, ruling that undocumented workers are not entitled to recourse on a wrongful failure to hire claim, where they misrepresent their lawful ability to work in the first place.
Relevant Facts:
Vicente Salas was a seasonal worker at Sierra Chemical, a swimming pool chemical business. In 2006, he injured his back while working. After returning to work for a short time on modified duty, he reinjured his back when he was re-assigned to his regular duties. Following this injury, he brought a workers’ compensation claim against the company. In December 2006, Salas was laid off as part of Sierra Chemical’s annual reduction. In 2007 Sierra Chemical contacted Salas, informing him that he could return to work, provided he could establish he had received a medical release. Salas could not produce such a release and was precluded from returning pursuant to Sierra Chemical’s policies.Continue Reading The California Court of Appeals Limits the Remedies for Undocumented Workers
